WP/11431/2024 of S.UDHAYA SURIYAN Vs THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY on 27 October 2026

ORDER

The present Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned order of the Disciplinary Authority imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement vide G.O.(2D).No.178 dated 22.07.2019 and as a consequence, the pension of the petitioner was got reduced vide order dated 06.12.2022.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the very finding rendered by the Disciplinary Authority is in contravention to the Revenue Standing Order. The learned counsel would further submit that the petitioner was given a charge memorandum on 04.02.2015 as if he has created a bogus Patta. For which, the petitioner has given a detailed explanation on 24.03.2015. Not satisfying with the explanation, the Disciplinary Authority has appointed an Enquiry Officer on 22.05.2015. Before the Enquiry Officer, the petitioner has participated and finally the Enquiry Officer has submitted a report on 22.02.2017 holding that the charge levelled against the petitioner is proved. Subsequently, the further explanation was called for from the petitioner, for which, the petitioner has sent a further representation on 22.03.2017. However, without considering the further representation to it’s right perspective, the impugned order dated 22.07.2019 was passed by imposing a punishment of compulsory retirement. The learned counsel would further contend that, even according to the explanation as well as the further representation, he has categorically mentioned that he had performed his duty as directed by the Tahsildar and that he being a Surveyor, there is no possibility for issuance of patta and issuance of Patta falls within the purview of the Tahsildar and the Village Administrative Officer. Whereas, this petitioner had been falsely implicated in this case. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the punishment imposed against the petitioner is disproportionate. Hence, prayed to interfere with the impugned order.

4. Per contra, the said contention was stoutly objected by the learned Additional Government Pleader and would contend that, the charge against the petitioner is the issuance of bogus Patta. The learned Additional Government Pleader would further contend that in the field, there was only 49 cents in existence. Whereas, in order to help one Mr.Padmanabhan, based upon the documents created by Mr.Padmanabhan as if in Patta No.278 there exists 93 cents. He has prepared a sketch as if there exists 93 cents in the field where really only 49 cents is available in the field. Though the petitioner has no authority to issue any Patta, any sub-division or issuance of Patta would emanate based upon the Surveyor’s report. In the case in hand, since the Surveyor has created a document as if there exists land in the field, the Patta was issued. Therefore, merely because the petitioner did not sign in that Patta, that by itself will not be given any clean chit to the petitioner, as the entire issuance of Patta was based upon the Surveyor’s report submitted by the petitioner. It is also his contention that there is no perversity in the impugned order. Hence, prayed to dismiss the present writ petition.

5. I have given my anxious consideration to either side submissions.

6. While considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, he has not raised any serious dispute with regard to the procedure followed by the respondents. It is well settled principle of law that whenever any writ petition is filed challenging the dismissal order, while exercising the power of judicial review, this Court should only look at the process in which the decision had been taken and not the correctness of the decision, unless such decision is perverse. In the case in hand, the charge against the petitioner is that he has created a bogus Patta in Patta No.518 for 89 cents and Patta No.278 for 93 cents in favour of Mr.Padmanabhan. The defence put forth by the petitioner is that, he has acted solely on the instruction of the Tahsildar. Even assuming that such instruction was given by the Tahsildar, the fact remains that the petitioner prepared a sketch as if there exists a land of 89 cents and 93 cents in the field. Whereas such extent of lands are not available and only lesser extent of land are available in the field. It is further established through records that, the sketch prepared and the survey report given by the petitioner tally with the document relied by Mr.Padmanabhan in whose favour the said bogus Patta has been issued. Therefore, though the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that he has acted in accordance with the instruction of the Tahsildar and he has no authority to issue Patta, while considering the Enquiry report, there are evidence to establish the complicity of the petitioner in the commission of misconduct.

7. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer the contours of the judicial review. In this regard, this Court would like to refer to the following judgments:-

(i) B.C.Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India reported in (1995) 6 SCC 749

(ii) Deputy General Manager (Appellate Authority) Vs. Ajai Kumar Srivastava reported in (2021) 2 SCC 61.

(iii) The Indian Oil Corporation & Ors., Vs. Ajit Kumar Singh & Anr., reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 478.

Through the above judgements, the following principles would emerge:-

(i) Power of Judicial review is not like an appeal. But such power is meant to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and the compliance of natural justice.

(ii) The power of judicial review is not like an appellate remedy to substitute its own finding, unless the findings of the Original Authority and Appellate Authority is perverse and without evidence.

(iii) The High Court had no jurisdiction to review the penalty, unless the same is shockingly disproportionate.

(iv) The mere possibility to arrive at yet another finding, cannot be a reason to substitute the finding of the disciplinary Authority.

(v) The judicial review is meant only to ensure fairness in treatment and not to ensure fairness of conclusion.

(vi) While exercising the power of judicial review, so long as there is some evidence to support the conclusion arrived at by the original authority, the same has to be sustained.

8. According to the above principles, unless there is any perversity in the impugned order, the reasoning given by the Disciplinary Authority cannot be interfered with. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has raised some objection, this Court is of the firm view that such objection by itself will not be sufficient to make the impugned order become perverse. Furthermore, coming to the punishment, this being a case of fabrication of Patta for non existing land, considering the serious allegation against the petitioner, this Court absolutely does not find any disproportionality in the punishment. Therefore, this Court does not find any merits in the present Writ Petition.

9. Accordingly, the present Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected WMPs are also closed. 27-10-2026 Index: Yes Speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes KMI To

1. The Additional Chief Secretary Government Of Tamil Nadu, Fort St. George, Chennai-09.

2. The Secretary Revenue Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-09.

3. The Principal Secretary Government Of Tamil Nadu, Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Government Of Tamil Nadu, Chennai-05.

C.KUMARAPPAN J. KMI WP No. 11431 of 2024 AND WMP Nos.12541 & 12543 OF 2024 27-10-2026